Nutritional guides show a simple anagram for the principles of diet planning. These letters are A, B, C, D, M and V, and are known as the six dietary planning principles. Taught in colleges and medical centers around the world, the letters each stand for a section of diet planning that should never go unnoticed.
A for Adequacy, B for Balance
Adequacy of diet means that it should have all the essentials. It should meet the daily recommended totals of fiber, vitamins, minerals and other essentials needed by the body to function properly. It will help keep a healthy weight and keep the practitioner in good health.Balancing a diet means that foods will help balance out the diet where one nutrient rich food will not overcrowd other foods that are rich in other nutrients. It maintains a well-rounded meal plan that is not over abundant in one area only. Adhering to the food pyramid helps this area.
C for kCalorie, D for Density
Energy control is designed as kCalorie. It manages the amount of calories in a diet which in turn manages the amount of energy the body will have during the day. It helps regulate a diet plan so that there are not many "empty calories" or calories that do not provide energy.Density is for the nutrient density of the diet plant. It is a formula of percentage of calories to energy. For example, a food high in energy but low in calories has a higher nutrient density than a food high in calories with little nutrients. Grapes can be a good source of nutrient density as it provides high nutrients with few calories.
M for Moderation, V for Variety
Moderation deals with not overindulging in a certain area of the diet plan while providing enough of all the major food groups and essentials. It focuses on keeping nutrient rich foods and having a well thought out meal plan. This will help keep the calorie count under firm control as well.Variety is simply for varying up the foods eaten. While a meal plan can be well thought out and rich in nutrients, if it is the same each day the person will be bored and lack enthusiasm. Varying the selections of food that can be eaten in a food group will help keep the diet from being boring. Eat something from all the food groups and change up what that choice is on a frequent basis.
Sources:
Amarillo College: Perspectives on Health and Nutrition
find more here:
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-abcdmv-principles-diet-10625063.html?cat=5
For most people willing to pay a premium for organic food, the reason is some nebulous combination of health, environment and flavor. If pressed, however, few could point to evidence that organic food is better than conventionally grown products on any of those counts.
This month, a new piece of evidence emerged on this issue, and the news was bad for organic agriculture. A report out of Stanford University found no consistent differences in nutritional content between organic and conventionally grown crops. So how about the other reasons for buying organic? Let’s start by looking at the environmental differences between conventional and organic farming.
Comparing the environmental impacts of two products involves many considerations: chemical runoff into our water supply, soil health and greenhouse gas emissions, to name just a few. Since there isn’t enough space to consider all of those in a single article, we’ll take one environmental consideration at a time in an occasional series.
Land use is a reasonable place to begin. Part of a product’s environmental impact is the amount of space required to produce it. After all, if a plot of land weren’t required to produce corn or avocados or pigs, it could be used for environmentally helpful purposes such as habitats for wild animals or carbon-eating plants or land for solar panels and wind farms.
Food production requires an incredible amount of land. By some estimates, croplands and pastures now occupy 40 percent of Earth’s land surface. Producing more food with less land could be a major win for the environment.
In May, researchers at Canada’s McGill University and the University of Minnesota published an article in the journal Nature comparing the productivity of organic and conventional farms.
This particular study is known as a meta-analysis. In a meta-analysis, a researcher compiles all of the studies on a particular issue, usually discarding those that are methodologically unsound, then finds a statistical method with which to combine them. Ultimately, a meta-analysis turns a series of smaller studies into a large study, which, if done right, carries more persuasive heft and can bring real clarity to disputed scientific issues.
In their meta-analysis, McGill’s Verena Seufert and her colleagues examined 66 previous studies. Their results are bound to disappoint organic advocates. Overall, they found that organic methods produce 25 percent less food than conventional farming on the same land area.
Read more here: